Dismiss Notice
Attention AVForums app / Tapatalk users
Sadly GDPR means that, from 25th, we can no longer offer access to AVForums via the branded app or Tapatalk.
Click here for more information.

100Hz 28inch versus 50Hz 32inch - which is better?

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by gbarter, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. gbarter

    gbarter
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Having had a look through the various threads I can find lots of good tips, but I have a general question:

    If I have around £500-£600 or so to spend, should I get a 28inch 100Hz model, (like a Pan PS12), or should I get a 32inch 50Hz model which would be about the same cost?

    I have had all sorts of experts/friends giving counter arguments, the general consensus being that 100Hz might be bad for sports etc, and that a 32inch is the best because it gives you the whole picture without cropping the image.

    Any hinst/recommendations gladly accepted.:p
     
  2. bonzobanana

    bonzobanana
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Messages:
    3,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Yeovil
    Ratings:
    +220
    I'd say a 50hz 28" is preferable to a 100hz 28" but when it comes to 32" its a bit more debatable. I have a 28" 100hz myself because it was cheap but it doesn't offer the fine resolution or dynamic RGB colours of a 50hz set. It does make up for it in other ways though. A 28" tv no more crops the image than 32" its just a smaller display.
     
  3. gbarter

    gbarter
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for your feedback - although this has made the decision slightly harder if anything. I had assumed that a 100Hz 28 would have been better than a 50Hz 28, but I can see what you mean.

    In your experience can you recommend a good 50Hz 28 at all? It seems that whichever way you go with this its always a compromise!!

    Thanks again.
     
  4. TV Headache

    TV Headache
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    242
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not sure what effect 100Hz has on colours since it only affects the scanning frequency, but my advice would be that if you don't tend to notice 50Hz flicker, you probably won't get the benefit of a 100Hz set. Having said that, a 32" set will make flicker more obvious, especially when it's displaying a large area of a light colour but generally speaking you either notice it or you don't.

    And as you have already noticed, 100Hz can also create side effects which are only aleviated by expensive digital processing found in high-end sets, so for limited budget you might be better off going for 50Hz.
     
  5. gbarter

    gbarter
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think I will have to agree with your logic, if 100Hz was really that good on the lower end sets then they would all be 100Hz I guess, the fact that many aren't suggests that this is not really a good choice at the moment.

    This just leaves me decising on the size, most posts seem to agree that the Panasonic range is pretty goo at present and I have only to choose 28PS1 or 32PS5 and I should be happy.

    Thanks for your input.
     
  6. loofer

    loofer
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2001
    Messages:
    186
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +4
    When i was choosing a 28 inch widescreen i stood for a good 15 minutes staring at a Sony 50hz and 100hz screen and couldn't see a shred of difference, i would go for the screen size every time as you're at least getting a noticable feature for your money.
     
  7. gbarter

    gbarter
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Having done virtually the same thing in Currys last night I would have to say that I substantially agree, if anything the 100Hz model was slightlu more annoying as it struggled a bit with a football match - though this could have simply been a bad set or signal I suppose.
     
  8. bonzobanana

    bonzobanana
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Messages:
    3,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Yeovil
    Ratings:
    +220
    One thing I would say is on an aerial feed you may not see much difference between a 50hz and 100hz set as theres a lot of processing involved with either type of set to create an image from RF signals. However on a 50hz set the scart rgb signal can basically go straight from the scart socket to the tubes of the gun with only signal amplification in its path but on a 100hz set this signal like all the others has to be video captured and processed which loses some dynamics of the RGB image.
     
  9. gbarter

    gbarter
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    OK, this is probably significant on two fronts, firstly all the sets in Currys were connected using aerial feed and not SCART, (I noticed this as I was looking to see how many inputs each model had). Also nearly all my TV watching is from either SKY Digital or DVD/VCR, all of which will be through SCART.

    I have pretty much decided to go for a 32inch model so I will have to try and get the store to give me a demo with a SCART input rather than an aerial - which may be hard to pull off since I have no intention of paying Currys prices!!
     
  10. nthornhill

    nthornhill
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I just want to add a voice the other way... I actually bought a 50Hz 32 inch Philips in sales, then got home and found it had an annoying high pitched noise (unbearable) so I took it back. Before going for a direct replacement I decided to check out the differences between 50Hz and 100Hz and I could definitely pick out the 100Hz TVs with ease. I found them much more relaxing to watch... So I went for a 100Hz 28 inch instead of replacing the 32 inch. And am very happy with the result.
     
  11. bonzobanana

    bonzobanana
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Messages:
    3,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Yeovil
    Ratings:
    +220
    I'm sad enough that when I got my 28" Thomson 100hz set I compared it to my existing 28" sharp widescreen set, side by side.

    The Sharp is a bottom end 50hz set, the Thomson a top of the range 28" 100hz set with built in 40 watt subwoofer as well as four high quality speakers and a weight approaching twice that of the Sharp.

    It is obvious that the tuner circuitry of the sharp is vastly inferior to the thomson. It bears no comparision at all. The geometry of the Thomson is very good compared to the Sharp which I would say is ok to good in comparision.

    However if you give the two sets an identical RGB feed the Sharp image has more contrast, dynamic colours and frankly detail.

    However it was an easy choice for me to keep the Thomson because its images are far superior with tuner, composite and s-video feeds, the 100hz refresh rate is easy on the eyes however close you get, the built in sound is amazing. It has 2 RGB scart sockets plus a s-video scart and front av sockets. Its fully NTSC compatible and is loaded with extra features. It looks fantastic and has a pureflat screen.

    All things considered though I would have prefered it to be 50hz but the rest of the features the same. Not possible of course because deluxe top end sets are 100hz or progressive scan. Not that I would have minded progressive scan though.

    .
     
  12. tjpicnic

    tjpicnic
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why the hell are top end TVs now offering 200Hz then??
    Totally confused
    Tony
     
  13. TV Headache

    TV Headache
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    242
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    The 200Hz you're quoting is probably the refresh rate of a flat panel TV rather than the scanning frequency of a CRT that this thread was discussing 6 years ago. Fixed pixel displays don't flicker in the way that CRTs do, but they are prone to motion blur if the refresh rate is too low or the pixel response time's not quick enough.
     
  14. Robie

    Robie
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    In my eyes 100 is definitely better than 50. I watched both side by side. I had the 100Hz and replaced it with 50Hz.

    I can see the refresh on a 50hz. Perhaps, that's just me.
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice